search_indicators

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It does not disclose potential side effects, rate limits, or behaviors beyond search. The lack of annotation context means the description should explicitly state that this is a read-only search operation. It partially does by implying searching, but it doesn't state whether results are limited, order, or any constraints. A 3 is fair because the description adds some context but not rich behavioral detail.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is compact: three sentences. The first states what it does, the second positions it as entry point and gives source values, the third gives a workflow. It is well-structured and not verbose.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description is fairly complete for the tool's role. It explains the purpose, gives source filter values, and directs to the next steps in the workflow. The main gaps are: 'limit' parameter semantics, potential return shape (though output schema exists), and explicit read-only clarification. With an output schema present, the tool's return format is addressed, so the description's gap on limit is the most notable.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description has the burden to explain parameters. It mentions 'source' with allowed values (eurostat, copernicus, osm) and implicitly explains query as the search term, but it does not mention 'limit' at all. The description adds meaning for 'source' but leaves 'limit' undefined. With 0% coverage, the description should compensate more fully.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a clear purpose: searching for an indicator (socio-economic, environmental, infrastructure), and positions it as the entry point for territorial analysis. It is differentiated from siblings by naming the downstream tools (list_zones, get_indicators) and clarifying it's the starting point.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly says when to use it ('Point d'entrée de toute analyse territoriale croisée'), what filters exist (source on eurostat, copernicus, or osm), and gives a clear sequence of usage: use search_indicators, then list_zones, then get_indicators. This is strong usage guidance that helps the agent understand the workflow.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.